Just Another OC Homeless Guy:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."

Addendum: Since is appears that there were almost 500 comments before someone else notice the sentence "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun." I'm wondering whether:1- I clicked on the same article as everyone else2- the article was changed3- Fark is largely populated by kneejerk liberal morons who never let facts get in the way of a political talking point.

Kit Fister:No, we're okay with reasonable restrictions that require education before getting guns. We are also OK with existing gun laws. We are not okay with extending new restrictions on anything else, because the guns themselves aren't the bloody cause of crime.

I'm not implying any such thing. But I do believe that limiting private ownership of weapons that have high capacity magazines, are capable of a high rate of fire, and that are easily concealed will limit the lethality of incidents like the Aurora theater shooting.

I believe all rights have boundaries, and that those boundaries are fluid over time and circumstances. Your freedom to speak your mind ends at yelling fire in a crowded theater. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I'm suggesting that it's appropriate at this time to limit private ownership of weapons to those that are less able to be used to commit mass murder.

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: I believe current federal limits acceptable, except that the 1986 Hughes amendment should be repealed.

As rifles of any type -- of which semi-automatic rifles are a smaller subset -- are used to commit murder less frequently than are unarmed attacks, I believe that any proposal to prohibit civilian ownership of any class of rifle, including semi-automatic rifles, lacks any rational basis.

Why do you believe that fully automatic weapons should be prohibited? Why do you believe that restriction is reasonable, but what I'm proposing is not?

That may or may not be, but that's why I would support an effort to repeal the 2nd amendment.

Dimensio:Your proposals lack popular support, are at best Constitutionally questionable and cannot be feasibly implemented.

Considering the tone of the responses thus far, I'm taking that as a compliment :-)

So, instead of see common sense, you'd rather simply repeal an amendment that is part of the bill of rights. Would you also like to repeal the 1st, 4th, 6th, or any other amendment you didn't personally believe in?

Sorry, while i can't tell if you're trolling or not (you certainly seem to be masterful at it), if you're not, you're one gotdamned retarded individual. Perhaps you should consider moving to Canada.

Wrathskellar:Kit Fister: No, we're okay with reasonable restrictions that require education before getting guns. We are also OK with existing gun laws. We are not okay with extending new restrictions on anything else, because the guns themselves aren't the bloody cause of crime.

I'm not implying any such thing. But I do believe that limiting private ownership of weapons that have high capacity magazines, are capable of a high rate of fire, and that are easily concealed will limit the lethality of incidents like the Aurora theater shooting.

I believe all rights have boundaries, and that those boundaries are fluid over time and circumstances. Your freedom to speak your mind ends at yelling fire in a crowded theater. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I'm suggesting that it's appropriate at this time to limit private ownership of weapons to those that are less able to be used to commit mass murder.

Sorry, brother, but they claimed the same thing in other states where atrocities were committed. I personally refuse to give up liberty to have the illusion of security. We tried that after 9/11, and what we got out of it was a masterful clusterfark of bullshiat and spending that did nothing to actually stop the things they were intended to, and instead caused massive bouts of xenophobia, fear, racial profiling, and true racism because all brown people must be terrorists.

Kindly fox oscar. I'm tired of having my rights dictated by people like you who let these things happen.

Dimensio:Wrathskellar: Why do you believe that fully automatic weapons should be prohibited?

I do not, and they are not. Your question is based upon a false premise.

My bad. I've re-read, and it seems I misunderstood your earlier statement. You'd like to see existing restrictions on full-auto weapons lifted, yes? Do you also believe that private ownership restrictions on hand grenades and attack helicopters are reasonable?

What I'm getting at is that we all believe there's a reasonable boundary for these things, we simply disagree with where that line should be drawn. How do you justify your placing of the boundary?

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: Wrathskellar: Why do you believe that fully automatic weapons should be prohibited?

I do not, and they are not. Your question is based upon a false premise.

My bad. I've re-read, and it seems I misunderstood your earlier statement. You'd like to see existing restrictions on full-auto weapons lifted, yes? Do you also believe that private ownership restrictions on hand grenades and attack helicopters are reasonable?

What I'm getting at is that we all believe there's a reasonable boundary for these things, we simply disagree with where that line should be drawn. How do you justify your placing of the boundary?

Just what we need, hoodlums robbing dollar stores with attack helicopters so they can get formula for their crying babies at home.

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: Wrathskellar: Why do you believe that fully automatic weapons should be prohibited?

I do not, and they are not. Your question is based upon a false premise.

My bad. I've re-read, and it seems I misunderstood your earlier statement. You'd like to see existing restrictions on full-auto weapons lifted, yes? Do you also believe that private ownership restrictions on hand grenades and attack helicopters are reasonable?

What I'm getting at is that we all believe there's a reasonable boundary for these things, we simply disagree with where that line should be drawn. How do you justify your placing of the boundary?

I'd say it's reasonable to believe that Dimensio believes, as do I, that the boundary's placement is reasonable considering that the cause of crime and the use of weapons in bad ways stems from completely unrelated issues that must be addressed before you can begin to make a dent in crime. But, silly me, that's talking sense to someone who apparently can't comprehend it the first ten times it's been said.

tstrimp:Wait... did anyone look at his graph? It claims that roughly 1/5th the US population was murdered in 2006. We had nearly 20,000 homicides for every 100,000 people?

See:

DingleberryMoose:AngryDragon: And climate change isn't real because it was cold outside in my neighborhood yesterday...

I think you missed my point. For that statistic to be reasonably accurate, 19,160 of every 100,000 people would have to die via homicide annually in the US. According to the CDC, there are only 794 deaths per 100,000 people annually. So violence kills 24 times as many people annually as actually die in the US.

That 794 per 100k stat is for 2009, but it's a fairly static number year-to-year.

Kit Fister:Sorry, brother, but they claimed the same thing in other states where atrocities were committed. I personally refuse to give up liberty to have the illusion of security. We tried that after 9/11, and what we got out of it was a masterful clusterfark of bullshiat and spending that did nothing to actually stop the things they were intended to, and instead caused massive bouts of xenophobia, fear, racial profiling, and true racism because all brown people must be terrorists.

Kindly fox oscar. I'm tired of having my rights dictated by people like you who let these things happen.

Ironic to you maybe, but I'm no fan of post-911 security legislation. But I'm also not religious about the whole liberty/security trade-off thing. Do you wear your seat belt? A motorcycle helmet? Do you rail against seat belt and helmet laws? Or do you simply find certain tradeoffs reasonable, and others less so? Me too.

DingleberryMoose:tstrimp: Wait... did anyone look at his graph? It claims that roughly 1/5th the US population was murdered in 2006. We had nearly 20,000 homicides for every 100,000 people?

See:

DingleberryMoose: AngryDragon: And climate change isn't real because it was cold outside in my neighborhood yesterday...

I think you missed my point. For that statistic to be reasonably accurate, 19,160 of every 100,000 people would have to die via homicide annually in the US. According to the CDC, there are only 794 deaths per 100,000 people annually. So violence kills 24 times as many people annually as actually die in the US.

That 794 per 100k stat is for 2009, but it's a fairly static number year-to-year.

Thanks. I skipped some derp there in the middle. It was getting thick.

Wrathskellar:Your freedom to speak your mind ends at yelling fire in a crowded theater. My right to swing my fist ends at your nose. I'm suggesting that it's appropriate at this time to limit private ownership of weapons to those that are less able to be used to commit mass murder.

Yelling "fire" within a crowded theater and swinging my fist into an individual's nose demonstrably and inherently adversely affects individuals other than myself.

How does my ownership of an AR-15 rifle demonstrably and inherently adversely affect any individual other than myself?

Kit Fister:I'd say it's reasonable to believe that Dimensio believes, as do I, that the boundary's placement is reasonable considering that the cause of crime and the use of weapons in bad ways stems from completely unrelated issues that must be addressed before you can begin to make a dent in crime. But, silly me, that's talking sense to someone who apparently can't comprehend it the first ten times it's been said.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm fully supportive of addressing the root causes of crime, but that wasn't the impetus of this thread, so I haven't addressed it. At the same time I also advocate greater restriction of private ownership of certain types of weapons in order to limit the lethality of mass murder events.

Wrathskellar:You'd like to see existing restrictions on full-auto weapons lifted, yes? Do you also believe that private ownership restrictions on hand grenades and attack helicopters are reasonable?

As I have stated, I believe existing regulation to be reasonable, and I believe no rational justification exists for further restriction.

What I'm getting at is that we all believe there's a reasonable boundary for these things, we simply disagree with where that line should be drawn. How do you justify your placing of the boundary?

Explosive ordnance and fully automatic firearms create an increased risk of collateral damage even with normal, appropriate use, justifying additional regulation (though not prohibition) upon their ownership. Normal use of my AR-15 rifle or my Springfield Armory XD handgun does not result in a similar risk.

Wrathskellar:Kit Fister: I'd say it's reasonable to believe that Dimensio believes, as do I, that the boundary's placement is reasonable considering that the cause of crime and the use of weapons in bad ways stems from completely unrelated issues that must be addressed before you can begin to make a dent in crime. But, silly me, that's talking sense to someone who apparently can't comprehend it the first ten times it's been said.

The two are not mutually exclusive. I'm fully supportive of addressing the root causes of crime, but that wasn't the impetus of this thread, so I haven't addressed it. At the same time I also advocate greater restriction of private ownership of certain types of weapons in order to limit the lethality of mass murder events.

Why do you believe mass murder acceptable when committed with implements that you do not wish to prohibit?

Dimensio:Yelling "fire" within a crowded theater and swinging my fist into an individual's nose demonstrably and inherently adversely affects individuals other than myself.

How does my ownership of an AR-15 rifle demonstrably and inherently adversely affect any individual other than myself?

Your ownership does not. But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

Wrathskellar:But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

It seems that limiting my constitutionally guaranteed rights is what you're about here. I don't like that idea very much.

Dimensio:Explosive ordnance and fully automatic firearms create an increased risk of collateral damage even with normal, appropriate use, justifying additional regulation (though not prohibition) upon their ownership. Normal use of my AR-15 rifle or my Springfield Armory XD handgun does not result in a similar risk.

An argument could easily be made that "normal and appropriate" use of full auto arms is no riskier than that of a semi-auto rifle. It's a matter of appropriate training. I'm not seeing why your boundary is more reasonable than mine.

tstrimp:cassanovascotian: Loaded Six String: Should we find a nice infographic on how many people were killed with knives in each of these countries as well? Violent crime is violent crime regardless of the method. There is a root cause, or indeed many, and guns are not it.

Sure, Let's do that. Comparisons against Europe would involve cultural differences, so that complicates things, but Canada and the US are pretty similar -the only major difference being gun control legislation.... and what's the result?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x615]

yeah, so ... I'm gonna go ahead and say that guns have a lot to do with it.

Wait... did anyone look at his graph? It claims that roughly 1/5th the US population was murdered in 2006. We had nearly 20,000 homicides for every 100,000 people?

Wrathskellar:Kit Fister: Sorry, brother, but they claimed the same thing in other states where atrocities were committed. I personally refuse to give up liberty to have the illusion of security. We tried that after 9/11, and what we got out of it was a masterful clusterfark of bullshiat and spending that did nothing to actually stop the things they were intended to, and instead caused massive bouts of xenophobia, fear, racial profiling, and true racism because all brown people must be terrorists.

Kindly fox oscar. I'm tired of having my rights dictated by people like you who let these things happen.

Ironic to you maybe, but I'm no fan of post-911 security legislation. But I'm also not religious about the whole liberty/security trade-off thing. Do you wear your seat belt? A motorcycle helmet? Do you rail against seat belt and helmet laws? Or do you simply find certain tradeoffs reasonable, and others less so? Me too.

I don't wear a seatbelt when I don't believe it's necessary, I don't wear a helmet when I don't believe it's necessary. I don't believe anyone has the right to force me to do that.

While i believe in reasonable compromise (requiring vehicles to provide safety features, but not forcing you to use them, for example), I don't believe that such compromise should entail restricting people as to what they can and cannot do/own/use.

I believe the drug war should be ended and most drugs legalized/regulated, and I believe that energies spent in trying to ban objects or substances would be better used to fight the reasons that cause most people to go there.

You bring up the Aurora shooting. Six Months before the person did this, he made statements about wanting to kill people, and a psychiatrist warned school officials that he was a danger to himself or others. However, since he dropped out, nothing was ever done about it.

Now, what's more reasonable: That you pass legislation that restricts what this person can do with guns, which may force him towards using incendiaries or explosives rather than guns, or that you pass legislation putting in place more care for people with mental issues and more responsibility to the people who review the person's mental health to report such behavior with the weight of mandatory evaluation?

One only changes the vector of attack, the other potentially stops the thing entirely.

So why should I give up my liberties and be further restricted from owning an object as a sane, healthy individual, because the system in place allowed someone with an obvious mental issue to remain free and able to cause trouble?

Likewise, if someone holds up a store because their kids are starving and they need money for food, should we harshen the punishment for committing these acts and putting others in harm's way when they get desperate enough to do this, or should we have taken a look at how we might have better helped people in that situation?

Of course, it's easier to draw a line in the sand and just keep taking away rights and privileges as people abuse them because it makes us feel better that "Oh, well, NOW that person can't do it..." than it is to come up with meaningful ways of helping people that have circumstances that put them in a position where their choices are limited and they make a bad one, or have health issues that drive them to do evil things.

We as a society also need to take a good, hard, long look at how we treat each other in general, since all we're doing now is punishing law-abiding citizens for the mistakes of the ill, the desperate, the stupid, and the purely evil, and the more we see those tactics don't work, the more we keep trying the same damn things hoping for a different result.

Right now, if you knew anything about prisons, you'd know that they don't reform anyone. They don't actually make anyone better. They just warehouse them. And with all the shiat that happens to the offenders on the inside, a lot of them come out a lot worse than they were when they went in to begin with.

It's like a dog that is starving, hungry, and half crazed going off and attacking someone, thrown into a pound with a bunch of rabid, territorial dogs that are even more vicious and crazed, and expecting the dog to come out and go to a new home and be completely people-friendly.

It's really sad that we treat animals better than we treat each other, and even more sad that people like you can't be bothered to do anything more than advocate steps that don't really fix the problem.

DingleberryMoose:Wrathskellar: But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

It seems that limiting my constitutionally guaranteed rights is what you're about here. I don't like that idea very much.

All your constitutionally guaranteed rights are currently limited. They always have been. I'm proposing what I think is a reasonable limit on the private ownership of firearms.

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: Explosive ordnance and fully automatic firearms create an increased risk of collateral damage even with normal, appropriate use, justifying additional regulation (though not prohibition) upon their ownership. Normal use of my AR-15 rifle or my Springfield Armory XD handgun does not result in a similar risk.

An argument could easily be made that "normal and appropriate" use of full auto arms is no riskier than that of a semi-auto rifle. It's a matter of appropriate training. I'm not seeing why your boundary is more reasonable than mine.

Perhaps I should reconsider whether the "boundary" with which I am comfortable is reasonable. I have already determined that the "boundary" that you have established is not.

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: Yelling "fire" within a crowded theater and swinging my fist into an individual's nose demonstrably and inherently adversely affects individuals other than myself.

How does my ownership of an AR-15 rifle demonstrably and inherently adversely affect any individual other than myself?

Your ownership does not. But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

And yet, you have yet to acknowledge the fact that the guy who committed the crime in the Aurora Theater also had explosives and chemical devices booby-trapping his home, demonstrating his ability to create such devices and further suggesting that he could have easily done more damage with much greater lethal outcome had he desired to do so. But yet, you suggest nothing that actually stops this man from committing a crime, and instead suggest that law-abiding citizens should endure "Reasonable" restrictions in order to reduce the lethality of only one possible vector of attack.

Wrathskellar:DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

It seems that limiting my constitutionally guaranteed rights is what you're about here. I don't like that idea very much.

All your constitutionally guaranteed rights are currently limited. They always have been. I'm proposing what I think is a reasonable limit on the private ownership of firearms.

Then I think we have nothing more to discuss as we obviously vehemently disagree with what you consider to be reasonable.

I would point out, however, that your general boundary is already enacted in spades in your home state of California, and it has done little to curb the crime there. So, I guess that goes to show it's really not that effective.

Dimensio:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a form of government action, but it does not explicitly "enable" me to do anything.

Anything that limits governmental control of citizenry enables said citizenry as acts not specifically prohibited by law are typically considered to not be prohibited. However, what actually enables you to own such a gun (they aren't my speed, I love milsurp bolt action rifles) is the society which has enabled you to afford to own such a gun and provided you with freedom sufficient to purchase such a gun.

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: Yelling "fire" within a crowded theater and swinging my fist into an individual's nose demonstrably and inherently adversely affects individuals other than myself.

How does my ownership of an AR-15 rifle demonstrably and inherently adversely affect any individual other than myself?

Your ownership does not. But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*

Wrathskellar:Dimensio: What law "enables" my ownership of an AR-15 rifle?

Sorry, more accurately, it's the lack of a restriction. I didn't know you were going to go all semantic on me.

The difference is important; to "enable" an action implies government control of the action. In free societies, actions are controlled only when justification for control exists. Only in tyrannical societies are all actions "controlled" by government by default.

Wrathskellar:DingleberryMoose: Wrathskellar: But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

It seems that limiting my constitutionally guaranteed rights is what you're about here. I don't like that idea very much.

All your constitutionally guaranteed rights are currently limited. They always have been. I'm proposing what I think is a reasonable limit on the private ownership of firearms.

Allow me to rephrase: It seems that further limiting my constitutionally guaranteed rights is what you're about here. I don't like that idea very much. Private ownership of full auto weaponry isn't prohibited in most cases, it's just highly taxed. I don't like the idea of the NFA tax and think it should be done away with, but I'm all for freedom of choice in many areas.

Silly Jesus:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."

Addendum: Since is appears that there were almost 500 comments before someone else notice the sentence "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun." I'm wondering whether:1- I clicked on the same article as everyone else2- the article was changed3- Fark is largely populated by kneejerk liberal morons who never let facts get in the way of a political talking point.

Ow! That was my feelings!:Wrathskellar: Dimensio: Yelling "fire" within a crowded theater and swinging my fist into an individual's nose demonstrably and inherently adversely affects individuals other than myself.

How does my ownership of an AR-15 rifle demonstrably and inherently adversely affect any individual other than myself?

Your ownership does not. But the law that enables your ownership also enabled James Holmes to legally own one. So long as those laws are around, we'll be unable to prevent the wrong people from using them to legally acquire highly lethal weapons. Limiting the lethal potential of those events is what I'm about here.

Or, you know, we could support a real mental health system and block the mentally ill from legally purchasing a firearm. Holmes, just like Loughner, just like Cho, and many other spree shooters were known wackos, but we need prohibition, not mental health in your world. *shakes head*

Yeah, i think I brought that up. But since it's easier and more politically expedient to pass laws that LOOK good but do nothing in the long run rather than pass laws that LOOK like they're ineffective because they take time to enact and make a lasting change, it'll never happen and zealots like that guy will never stop to consider alternatives. They just have their dick in a knot to do something NOW.

Kit Fister:I don't wear a seatbelt when I don't believe it's necessary, I don't wear a helmet when I don't believe it's necessary. I don't believe anyone has the right to force me to do that.

While i believe in reasonable compromise (requiring vehicles to provide safety features, but not forcing you to use them, for example), I don't believe that such compromise should entail restricting people as to what they can and cannot do/own/use.

I believe the drug war should be ended and most drugs legalized/regulated, and I believe that energies spent in trying to ban objects or substances would be better used to fight the reasons that cause most people to go there.[snip]

It seems we're in full agreement with more things than we disagree about. But I see no reason why addressing one side of the coin means we don't also address the other. My advocacy of gun restrictions in no way affects or limits my equal advocacy of efforts to "come up with meaningful ways of helping people". It simply isn't the focus of TFA.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."

Dipshiat, when the original link was posted many hours ago, it did not say anything about the robbers being armed. That's why several other people asked the same question early in this thread.

Wrathskellar:Kit Fister: I don't wear a seatbelt when I don't believe it's necessary, I don't wear a helmet when I don't believe it's necessary. I don't believe anyone has the right to force me to do that.

While i believe in reasonable compromise (requiring vehicles to provide safety features, but not forcing you to use them, for example), I don't believe that such compromise should entail restricting people as to what they can and cannot do/own/use.

I believe the drug war should be ended and most drugs legalized/regulated, and I believe that energies spent in trying to ban objects or substances would be better used to fight the reasons that cause most people to go there.[snip]

It seems we're in full agreement with more things than we disagree about. But I see no reason why addressing one side of the coin means we don't also address the other. My advocacy of gun restrictions in no way affects or limits my equal advocacy of efforts to "come up with meaningful ways of helping people". It simply isn't the focus of TFA.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on your consideration of gun restrictions. Thankfully, you can remain in California where the 2nd Amendment might as well have been repealed given the state's massive restrictions, and not be affected. The rest of us will continue to ignore you and look for good ways of helping people BEFORE they get violent.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy:Just Another OC Homeless Guy: themeaningoflifeisnot: Dd either of the robbers display a firearm? The article doesn't mention anything about that.

You obviously have MASSIVE reading comprehension issues. 2nd paragraph: "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun."

Addendum: Since is appears that there were almost 500 comments before someone else notice the sentence "The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office says a customer at the store on Dunn Avenue shot 19 year-old Rakeem Odoms three times when Odoms refused to hand over his gun." I'm wondering whether:1- I clicked on the same article as everyone else2- the article was changed3- Fark is largely populated by kneejerk liberal morons who never let facts get in the way of a political talking point.

So which is it?

The original article not only did not mention whether the robbers were armed, but it also did not state how many times the robber was shot or mention his name. Wow, you're a tool.